You can clone with
Hi If i have two tests like this:
it "should call the method" do
it "should reset the authenticator application data" do
@my_test_object.some_property.should == "something else"
So in short: two test-blocks, where in the first i check if the method is actually called, and in the second i check for the effects of the complete method --including the previously stubbed method.
What happens then: in the second test the actual method is not called, by I get the error that the expectation was received again. So somehow, the any_instance sticks between tests, and I would expect it to last for only the current scope (test/context/ ...).
Is this the intended behaviour?
Are you using mocha or rspec for mocking? The example uses expects, which suggests you are using mocha.
Good remark! We were using mocha, and i am now converting to rspec-mocks, I am using the version from git, and encountered that bug. The code I showed was trying to make it clearer (oops: and made it worse).
To make sure, here is the actual sample from code:
context "reset-failing" do
@authenticator_application = Factory(:authenticator).authenticator_applications
@authenticator_application.blob = fixture_file('used_blob')
it "should reset the authenticator application" do
it "should reset the authenticator application data" do
@authenticator_application.reload.blob_parameters[:error_count].should == 0
To make this context pass, i just need to reverse the two tests. I find that smelly :)
Ok, i forked rspec-mocks, and was able to add failing tests. Now i hope to be able to fix those ;)
In the tests all tests are executed against a fresh klass.
Yikes, nice find. Do you need any help fixing it?
I'll take a look at this over the weekend and try to get it sorted.
FYI - this is clearly a blocker for the 2.6.0 release.
I've got a failing test replicating this at c42engineering/rspec-mocks@805c2f8 - I've been unable to replicate what @nathanvda describes (I've taken the liberty of depending on spec ordering in an attempt to replicate this issue). I did however find something that might be causing this and I have a failing test for it. Please take a look - it's all under the when resetting after an example context. In the meanwhile I'll try to get that broken spec to pass.
when resetting after an example
I merged c42engineering/rspec-mocks@805c2f8 to a local branch and see the failure. I started looking into the problem and it looks like an even ordering problem, but I haven't gotten to the root of it yet. Essentially, @__recorder is set to nil before stop_observing_currently_observed_methods! is invoked, so a new instance of Recorder is generated that doesn't have the previously recorded messages. I'm going to keep poking because I'd like to clear this up so I can do this release, but feel free to comment here if you have any insights or are working on it as well.
The above diagnosis is partially wrong: @__recorder is not getting set to nil before stop_observing_currently_observed_methods!, but at the point that it is called, observed_method_names is empty.
Got it - restore_method was calling observed_method_names.delete(method_name) prematurely - fix coming shortly
@dchelimsky Awesome. I was about to get started on fixing this when I saw your comments (I've been afk for a bit). Let me know if you need any input from me. Also, since you've been looking at my code in some detail, I would greatly value any feedback you may have if you can spare the time.
I'm actually heading out for the rest of the day, but will pick this up tomorrow.
Added a failing test for issue #52
A simple fix for #52 (thanks to the hint from @dchelimsky).
Just pushed my test that replicates my issue. I presume it is not up to standard, the style is quite different then the others. But i replicate the exact behaviour that i failed to work in my project. Thanks to the hint from @dchelimsky the fix is indeed very simple. Thanks guys, you all are amazing.
@dchelimsky: not sure if the code/test is good enough for a pull request?
I'm actually not satisfied w/ that solution yet - there is something deeper going on that I'm close to putting my finger on, but not there yet - planning to continue on this tomorrow. Out for real now.
Great. I am looking forward to that. Thanks for your effort.
Fixing issue #52
So it looks like I'd done a couple of dumb things while trying to get the never and any_number_of_times constraints working. I'll list what I realised and the changes I've made - let me know if I've missed anything:
Question: I've left in place the specs that depend on ordering to verify that there are no dependencies (see first spec and second_spec) - should I leave them in place? Is there a good way to test this without our own specs having to be ordered?
There are a couple of other commits I've made on the issue52 branch on c42engineering/rspec-mocks that you may or may not wish to include:
Let me know if this is satisfactory and I'll raise a pull request.
Ensure that any_instance expectations are properly cleaned up between…
- Closes #52.
No pull necessary - I squashed your commits and merged them with your name listed as author.
I did follow up w/ a couple of refactoring/cleanup commits: ef65d3 and 189fda. Please comment on those commits if you have any questions.
ps - HUGE THANKS!
Sorry about the open/close - when I pushed the aforementioned commits our new CI server told me that the build was failing against 1.9.1. Turned out to be a scoping issue in the spec, so it was a quick fix.
Not at all - it was my mess to begin with. Thanks for taking the time to give me feedback - I do have questions (several of them once I started looking at all the clean-up you've done) - I'll probably catch you on IRC later today or tomorrow rather than spam you with notification mails from Github.